from the whoo-boy dept

If you've been following the Prenda Law saga around here for any length of time, you're aware that it's been going on for years, with sketchy copyright trolling practices that appeared to include Team Prenda uploading their own content to torrent sites, tracking who downloaded them, and then filing questionable lawsuits. That scheme fell apart after a series of judges, led by Judge Otis Wright, called out Team Prenda for committing fraud on the courts, and referred the issue to the feds, while also hitting them with a fine. That was three years ago. Other courts piled on more fines and attorneys' fees -- and more referrals to the feds. After the second such referral, Ken "Popehat" White noted that these things take time, but that something would probably happen eventually:

The wheels turn slowly, friends, but make no mistake, the wheels turn. The wheels are grinding down Team Prenda, and doing so faster and faster every month. With two different federal judges referring the matter to state bars and the U.S. Attorney's office, the probability of bar investigations and federal grand jury investigations approaches certainty.

Of course, it's been three years since then and a few things have happened. One of the three main members of Team Prenda (though, probably the least involved of the three) passed away. But the other two are both facing bar complaints over ethical violations. Paul Hansmeier also famously tried to declare bankruptcy, but appears to have lied to the court in the process. Fight Copyright Trolls just recently had an update on that case, and suffice it to say, it's hilarious. Hansmeier has not just lost his lawyer after she told the court that she could no longer represent him and be a servant of the court (i.e., heavily hinting that Hansmeier was likely asking her to lie to the court), but he's also lashed out at the trustee handling his bankruptcy for... buying a new car.

And, of course, both Hansmeier and Steele have moved on to a revamped version of the same old trolling trick, but this time using the Americans with Disabilities Act as the fulcrum, rather than copyright law.

But, it appears that all that may be small potatoes. Because, as White told us three years ago, the wheels of justice do keep turning, and he now has strong indications that not only is the FBI actively investigating Steele and Hansmeier for fraud, but that they may be just about ready to move on to the next steps:

Based on my 21 years in the federal criminal justice system, I believe the letter reflects an active, determined investigation in its later stages. The letter represents an abandonment of operational security and confidentiality; it suggests the FBI no longer sees a need for stealth. That, in turn, suggests that the FBI believes it's already developed the evidence it needs to prove the substance of its case (that Team Prenda committed wire and/or mail fraud) and is just identifying as many victims as possible for potential witnesses and to establish the amount of damages. Bear in mind that under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the more money wrongdoers made, the more time they're facing.

Now, to be fair, over the years we've noted many times that the DOJ often misrepresents things in criminal filings, so it will be interesting to see what charges are actually filed, assuming that the case really is ready to move. But as White also noted, "Team Prenda needs federal criminal defense attorneys, and needs them right now."

from the too-bad-he-can't-monetize-the-hate-he's-earned... dept

Everyone behind the failed clown school that was Prenda Law deserves what's happening to Paul Hansmeier. Unfortunately, it appears Hansmeier is taking the most damage from the fallout of Prenda's disastrous copyright trolling… or at least he's the one doing most of his suffering in public.

Of course, it's his own fault. Rather than get out of the trolling business, Hansmeier doubled down. He swapped porn stars for wheelchairs, pursuing small businesses for Americans with Disabilities Acts violations. Fronting as a public interest, Hansmeier's "Disabilities Support Alliance" is every bit the serial litigant Prenda was.

Now, it's falling apart. As is Hansmeier himself. He's currently facing possible disbarment for his participation in Prenda's fraudulent behavior. He just lost one of his lawsuits against a Minnesota landlord for bogus ADA violations -- one out of more than 100 lawsuits he's filed against small businesses in the area. If Hansmeier's asked to cough up legal fees, one wonders where he'll find the money.

a. the beneficiaries of The Mill Trust are Hansmeier’s parents, siblings, future spouse and any future descendants; b. The Mill Trust is an irrevocable trust; c. the trustee, Browne, had the sole discretion, subject to Hansmeier’s right to veto, to distribute the assets of The Mill Trust for the benefit of the beneficiaries; and d. the Trust Agreement is executed by Hansmeier as “grantor” and Browne as “trustee” on December 28, 2010.

"Browne" is Padraigin Browne, Hansmeier's wife. Browne has apparently been moving money out of bank accounts and into this trust -- supposedly to handle "personal expenses." Quite obviously, the moves are being made to keep money from being rerouted to pay off judgments from Prenda's misdeeds and debtors seeking compensation. Hansmeier recently filed for bankruptcy, hoping to shield his assets from being seized/sold to pay Prenda judgments.

So, his cash -- sitting in bank accounts where it could be seized -- is being moved to his trust. (Hansmeier is also apparently using a Scottrade account and a shell entity ["Alpha Law Firm"] to keep his funds from being seized to pay off ~$400,000 in judgments. The "Monyet" name attached to the Scottrade account is another shell company.)

After Hansmeier had transferred $175,000 into the TCF Bank account held solely in Browne’s name (the “TCF Account”), Browne contacted TCF Bank and made arrangements for a TCF Bank branch to have $150,000 of cash on hand so that Browne could make a $150,000 cash withdrawal. Browne then went to the bank on December 13, 2013 and withdrew $150,000 in cash from the TCF Account.

[...]

On February 7, 2014, Hansmeier transferred an additional $70,000 from the Monyet Scottrade Account to the TCF Account.

Browne, after checking with TCF Bank to see what would be an appropriate amount that the bank branch would have “on hand” without making pre-arrangements, began to withdraw additional cash from the bank in $2,000 increments.

In the months of February-March, 2014, Browne withdrew at least $28,000 in cash from the TCF Account. She had also withdrawn $2,000 in cash from the TCF Account in November of 2013.

What Hansmeier refers to as "The Mill Trust" is actually something commonly utilized by small-time drug dealers and the lower rungs of the mob's organizational chart.

Those cash withdrawals, when added to the $150,000 in cash already hidden at Browne and Hansmeier’s home, resulted in a total of approximately $180,000 in cash hidden in a box at the home shared by Hansmeier and Browne.

The court has been unimpressed with Hansmeier's behavior so far. The following order was issued before his Cardboard Box In A Closet Trust came to light. (This opinion also provided by Fight Copyright Trolls.)

The debtor further argues that if he succeeded on the merits of the Claim Objections he would have been in a position to confirm a plan that paid 100% to general unsecured creditors, with interest. The deadline for filing claims is April 22, 2016, so there is no way of knowing at this point what the total claims will be in the case. To date a total of $2,493,510.17 in claims have been filed. Of that amount, $1,612,731.94 was the subject of the Claims Objections. Assuming for purposes of this motion only that the Claim Objections were sustained,2 the total claims would be reduced to $880,778.23.3 The debtor offered no evidence that he would have had non-exempt cash to fund an immediate payment of claims in full at the time of the conversion. Thus, the debtor would have to pay the claims over time with interest through his plan. The debtor is currently the subject of a disciplinary proceeding, the result of which could result in the suspension of his license to practice law or disbarment. The debtor has offered no evidence as to how he would fund plan payments if he is no longer licensed to practice law, which is his source of income.

The debtor asserts that the court’s decision to convert was based on prepetition conduct, a desire to punish the debtor for that prior conduct and an attempt to deny him a fresh start. While the court did recite rulings by numerous courts across the country that have found the debtor engaged in serious misconduct before those courts, and had been sanctioned for that conduct, those rulings merely established the background for the court’s finding that the debtor has continued his pattern and practice of being untruthful. The debtor’s misconduct did not stop when he filed his bankruptcy petition. Rather, the court found that the debtor had filed misleading or false documents in this case and provided potentially false testimony at his Rule 2004 examination.

Rowland, who says her restaurant was in compliance with the disability access requirements, says she eventually settled the lawsuit for $8,500 to avoid paying even more in legal fees.

“This is someone taking advantage of a very big loophole in our legal system,” Rowland said. She testified before state lawmakers Thursday as lawmakers introduced a law that seems to be aimed directly at attorneys like Hansmeier.

One lawmaker even joked, “The suggestion was made that we make this the Paul Hansmeier Act.”

The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce worked on the bi-partisan legislation with the Minnesota State Council of Disability and the Human Rights Department.

“We're really just trying to limit some of the litigation lawsuit abuse that's been occurring,” Chamber of Commerce Vice President Beth Kadoun said.

The legislation would give businesses at least 30 days to respond to lawsuits, shift the burden of proof in some cases to those filing the lawsuit and restrict attorneys from demanding immediate settlements.

Hansmeier appears to be hiding the assets he does have and presumably is attempting to pay off his debts by intimidating small businesses into lowball settlements. If he's disbarred -- or if the legislation passes -- his sole revenue stream will dry up. Then what?

The first step is already in place. Hansmeier has been ordered to liquidate his assets. His appeal motion to stay Chapter 7 conversion pending appeal has failed and the judge presiding over his bankruptcy case is no more receptive to Hansmeier's actions than the judges presiding over the tail end of the Prenda debacle.

The debtor has refused and continues to refuse to disclose complete and accurate financial information. The debtor has dissipated over $80,000 in estate assets since the case was filed. Other courts have already found that the debtor exhibits a “serious and studied disregard for the orderly process of justice” and “a relentless willingness to lie to the court on paper and in person.”

There's certainly more to come in the next few months. Hansmeier hasn't shown any interest in scaling back his trolling efforts and seems to be hellbent on pissing off every judge he appears in front of. He's likely going to end up without a license to practice law -- which appears to be his only marketable skill. And it's a skill he can't wield without being abusive and dishonest.

Might as well fire up another batch of Orville Redenbacher's Schadenfreude-Flavored Gourmet Popping Corn and settle in. For a steady stream of updates, I wholeheartedly recommend following Sophisticated Jane Doe and the Minneapolis Star-Tribune's Dan Browning, from whom much of the above has been sourced. For additional entertainment, Hansmeier himself has rather belatedly joined Twitter, although most of his posts are just self-interested hashtag ADA lawsuit spam.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The reality of designer babies seems to be more and more likely -- especially now that gene editing tools like CRISPR are becoming more refined and widespread in labs around the world. Legitimate concerns over a modern form of eugenics are being raised, and the ethical debates are getting less theoretical as the science pushes the boundaries of what can be done. People might be able to activate or delete genes without fully understanding the results, and the advances that can eliminate genetic disorders could also eliminate certain minorities or traits that are not necessarily disabilities.

from the hoping-this-ends-up-in-tears-and-sanctions-as-well dept

Paul Hansmeier, having learned all he needs to know about practicing law from his years in the trolling trenches as part of Prenda Law, is now shaking down businesses using ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) lawsuits. This new (but not really) approach is slightly more palatable to the general public than attempting to fish a few bucks from randy torrenters via infringement lawsuits, but not by much. Those on the receiving end of these shakedown efforts don't see much difference between Hansmeier's new approach and the actions that netted him and Prenda Law sanctions from multiple courts.

Hansmeier still seems enthralled with the possibility of easy money, even if his experience with Prenda Law didn't exactly pan out the way its principals hoped. Most are still in the process of extracting themselves from the flaming wreckage of Prenda, but they're limping away, rather than strutting. Some may even face jail time for contempt.

Hansmeier and his non-profit (Disability Support Alliance) -- which exists nowhere but the Minnesota business registry and as a nominal plaintiff in his 50+ ADA lawsuits -- are running into roadblocks on Easy Buck Ave. One of the businesses he recently sued addressed his allegations by filing a $50,000 counterclaim for abuse of process and civil conspiracy.

Cal Brink was tired of the lawsuits that just kept coming. Since the first suit claiming lack of disability access was filed more than a year ago, businesses in this southwest Minnesota town of nearly 14,000 people have been worried that they, too, would be hit.

Nine lawsuits have been filed here so far by the Disability Support Alliance, a nonprofit group formed last summer, including one against the only bowling alley in town. The owner said he will soon close rather than pay the DSA’s $5,500 settlement offer or make the $20,000 of changes needed to comply with the Americans with ­Disabilities Act.

“Nobody fights them, because it’s going to cost you more to fight,” said Brink, executive director of the local Chamber of Commerce.

Now Marshall is fighting back. Working in concert with the Minnesota State Council on Disability, Brink developed an access audit for local businesses, allowing them to develop a plan to fix ADA issues and potentially to ward off litigation.

The plan has won the attention of the state Department of Human Rights, which hopes it could be used in other communities hit by serial litigation.

Since the putative goal is to improve access for the disabled, you'd think something called the "Disability Support Alliance" would be behind it. But the DSA isn't about improving access. It's about making money. Eric Wong, a member of the four-person-strong DSA says companies just need to pay it first and worry about complying with the law later.

His group “is currently in the process of producing a voluntary mass settlement agreement for those businesses in Marshall that are ready to confess to their crime, fully comply … and pay the damages/restitution that they are liable for under the law,” Wong said in an e-mail.

“The lawsuits will stop when there is no more access crime to prosecute,” he said. Many businesses “fail to understand that … we are now a zero tolerance state.”

Roughly translated: the trolling will continue until it's run off the rails by the public or the courts. The lawsuits have already caught the eye of Hennepin County's chief judge, which noted that the flurry of filings "raised the specter of serial litigation" and has ordered all DSA/Hansmeier's lawsuits filed in this county be handled by one judge. This will probably prompt Hansmeier to take his "business" elsewhere, rather than deal with extra scrutiny from a judge who won't have to connect the dots between multiple filings in multiple venues. With any luck, Hansmeier's efforts elsewhere will be greeted with the same local resistance and judicial distrust.

from the trolling-for-ADA-dollars dept

Late in 2013, Paul Hansmeier, formerly of Prenda Law'sLegal Buffoonery on Wheels Copyright Death Suicide Squad, realized that participating in a multi-jurisdictional legal train wreck had left him oddly unfulfilled. If the promise contained in his law degree was ever to be fulfilled, he would need to reassess his shakedown-focused lawyering.

After an indeterminable amount of thought, Hansmeier apparently arrived at the conclusion that -- unfulfilled promise or no -- he was really only good at one thing: shaking people down. And, sadly, he wasn't even all that great at that. But "sue what you know," as they say, and Hansmeier went about rebranding himself as a Champion of the Weak and Underprivileged.

No longer would he be throwing shaky demand letters and even shakier lawsuits at Household Members Voted Most Likely To Download Porn by the loose confederation of shakedown artists d/b/a An Actual Law Firm ("Come see our letterhead!"). That was the old Paul Hansmeier.

The new Paul Hansmeier would instead be throwing shaky lawsuits and demand letters at any company whose towel racks were located more than 32" above the ground or whose entry threshold was a ¼" above the legally-mandated height. The smaller the company the better, as they rarely even bothered to show up in court and would instead settle for a small fee.

The new Paul Hansmeier's operations were so efficient he could barely keep himself stocked in A4. Filings were submitted so fast not even the plaintiffs were aware they were listed as plaintiffs. And it was working, to a limited extent. Hansmeier was able to knock over a few mom-and-pop businesses for a few grand each. But now he's run into Kahler Hotels, which not only isn't interested in his ADA shakedown claims, but is countersuing him for $50,000+. (h/t to Dan Browning of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune)

1. Defendants are owners of real property located in Rochester, Minnesota.

2. Plaintiffs filed and served the instant action alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act and unfair discrimination.

3. Plaintiffs have an ulterior purpose in pursuing the claims set forth in their Complaint.

4. Plaintiffs’ Complaint misuses and perverts the purpose of a civil action.

5. As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiffs’ abuse of process, Defendants have sustained damages in excess of $50,000.

COUNT II - CIVIL CONSPIRACY

6. Defendants incorporate in this paragraph the allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 5 as though they were fully set forth herein.

7. The Plaintiffs are engaged in a civil conspiracy to accomplish some concerted action, which injures Defendants.

8. The Plaintiffs did commit, and executed certain acts in pursuance of certain torts as previously delineated against the Defendants.

9. That as a result of the Plaintiffs’ tortious conduct alleged herein, Plaintiffs did conspire and agree to commit such acts.

10. As a direct and proximate result thereof, Defendants have sustained damages in excess of $50,000.

WHEREFORE, Defendants pray for entry of judgment as follows:

1. Plaintiffs take nothing by their Complaint as alleged;

2. Defendants are awarded damages in excess of $50,000 together with interest, costs, disbursements and attorney’s fees; and

3. The court order such further relief as it deems just and equitable.

Whether or not the counterclaims (which are really, really vague) hold up remains to be seen, but this motion should give Hansmeier second thoughts about trolling this particular venue for easy ADA cash.

from the waiting-for-the-supreme-court dept

On March 19th, there was a ruling [pdf] in a case in a federal district court in Vermont, brought by the National Federation for the Blind against Scribd, saying that the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applied to the internet, and thus Scribd had to comply with the ADA. The specific concern is whether or not a website is a "place of public accommodation." Three years ago there was a similar ruling against Netflix (also brought by the National Federation for the Blind), which we noted had some troubling aspects to it. Since then, there have been a number of cases that have gone the other way. And, indeed, just this week the 9th Circuit appeals court upheld a lower court ruling [pdf] saying that Netflix does not need to comply with the ADA.

The 9th Circuit ruling made quick work of things, noting that it has ruled on this issue before and websites are not places of public accommodation:

We have previously interpreted the statutory term “place of
public accommodation” to require “some connection between the good or service
complained of and an actual physical place.” ... Because Netflix’s services are
not connected to any “actual, physical place[],” Netflix is not subject to the ADA.

The court in the Scribd, case, however, sees things differently (and, Vermont is a long way from the 9th Circuit, so those precedents do not apply in Vermont). The Vermont court is well aware that the 9th Circuit -- and others -- don't think websites are places of public accommodation:

On the narrow end, the Ninth, Third, and Sixth Circuits
each considered ADA claims brought by an employee who received
benefits through his or her employer that were issued by a third
party insurance company. All three courts held that Title III
did not apply because there was not a sufficient connection
between the discrimination the plaintiffs alleged and a physical
place. Weyer v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp., 198 F.3d
1104, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000) (explaining that “some connection
between the good or service complained of and an actual physical
place is required”); Ford v. Schering-Plough Corp., 145 F.3d
601, 613 (3d Cir. 1998) (holding “public accommodation” and the
list of examples in the statute were not ambiguous and did not
refer to non-physical access); Parker v. Metropolitan Life Ins.
Co., 121 F.3d 1006, 1011 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (noting that
“a public accommodation is a physical place” and a benefit plan
offered by an employer is not a good offered by a place of
public accommodation).

However, the Vermont court also notes that other Circuits have interpreted the ADA more broadly:

On the broad end, other circuit courts have read Title III
to apply even in the absence of some connection to a physical
place. In Carparts Distrib. Ctr., Inc. v. Auto. Wholesaler’s
Ass’n of New England, 37 F.3d 12, 19 (1st Cir. 1994), the First
Circuit explained that public accommodations are not limited to
physical structures. The court reasoned that by including
“travel service” on the list of examples in the definition,
Congress clearly contemplated that “service establishments”
could include providers of services that do not require a person
to physically enter a structure or site but may instead conduct
their business by telephone or correspondence. Id. It would be
“absurd” to conclude people who enter an office to purchase a
service are protected by the ADA but people who purchase the
same service over the telephone or by mail are not.

It lists a few other examples as well -- including the Netflix case from 2012 -- and then notes: "Clearly there is more than one reasonable interpretation of the language at issue here." And thus, it comes down on the side of saying the ADA should apply, noting how important a law it was in stopping discrimination. It leans heavily on that 2012 ruling against Netflix:

Taking into account all of the relevant background
information explored above, the Court finds Judge Ponsor’s
reasoning in Netflix persuasive. The Internet is central to
every aspect of the “economic and social mainstream of American
life.” PGA Tour, 532 U.S. at 675. In such a society,
“excluding businesses that sell services through the Internet
from the ADA would ‘run afoul of the purposes of the ADA and
would severely frustrate Congress’s intent that individuals with
disabilities fully enjoy the goods, services, privileges, and
advantages available indiscriminately to other members of the
general public.” Netflix, 869 F. Supp. 2d at 200 (quoting
Carparts, 37 F.3d at 20).

The Court must therefore determine whether the services
Scribd offers properly fall within any of the general categories
of public accommodations listed in the statute. Construing the
list of categories liberally, Plaintiffs have persuasively
argued that Scribd’s services fall within at least one of the
following categories: “place of exhibition or entertainment,” a
“sales or rental establishment,” a “service establishment,” a
“library,” a “gallery,” or a “place of public display or
collection.” ...
Therefore, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently
alleged that Scribd owns, leases, or operates a place of public
accommodation. Accordingly, Scribd’s motion to dismiss is
denied.

With so many conflicting rulings, it sounds like this is a situation where either Congress needs to update the ADA to clarify, or the Supreme Court needs to step in. And while we're very much against discrimination, broadly applying the ADA to websites would have some serious consequences, going well beyond what the law is supposed to be doing. We're already seeing folks like Team Prenda abusing the ADA to shake down small physical shops -- and you can bet that if the law is determined to apply widely to websites, they'll quickly return to their old ways of shaking down folks online as well. Yes, websites should strive to be created to accommodate people with different issues, but using a law that was clearly designed for physical retail stores, and saying it needs to automatically apply to all websites seems like a bad way to do this.

In most cases, federal and state laws governing disability access don’t provide punitive relief. They can only be used to get property owners to correct shortcomings and to recover the plaintiff’s reasonable legal expenses. However, Hansmeier has been making claims under a Minnesota law that the property owners are committing a bias offense, which is a misdemeanor. In correspondence seeking a settlement with Peterson, he wrote that the law exposes defendants to a fine of $500 per incident, as well as punitive damages.

Using this, Hansmeier has demanded anywhere from $2,500 to $15,000 from the businesses he's sued. The end result has been some companies paying up rather than fighting back, while others have decided to cease doing business entirely. The 84-year-old owner of an antique shop targeted by a Hansmeier suit has closed her business as a result of his litigious actions. At the point it shut down, it was making around "$50 a day." Now, the business is completely inaccessible -- both to the disabled and non-disabled alike.

Like copyright trolling, the hit rate may be low but the margin is comfortably high. Only a small percentage of those sued need to pay up to ensure profitability. Hansmeier has managed to extract a few settlements at this point, which will only encourage him to continue exploiting a good law for negative ends. The biggest hurdle he faces now is his own terrible reputation.

[T]he chief judge of Hennepin County District Court has ordered that a half dozen of Hansmeier’s disability cases be reassigned to a single judge to ensure that they’re handled uniformly.

The Minnesota attorney general’s office recently referred complaints about Hansmeier to the board that disciplines attorneys for ethical violations, even as he continues to press for cash settlements with small business owners.

The lure of easy money has now attracted another one of Prenda's principals: John Steele.

DarthSkeptic tweeted outtwo bits of information that point to Steele moving from one shakedown business to another.

On December 30, 2014, John Steele incorporated the "Accessibility Law Group, LLC" in the state of Illinois (screenshot below as the Illinois Secretary of State's business search provides no permalink to search results). The address of the "business" traces back to virtual offices offered by DaVinci Virtual Office Solutions, which would suggest Steele plans to pursue businesses for ADA violations without actually having to set up (physical) shop in Illinois.

Given Steele's past, one should probably expect a flurry of filings in the near future, pursuing low-risk targets with low-to-medium settlement offers, much like Hansmeier's "work" in Minnesota. The paperwork can be filed from anywhere with work farmed out to local lawyers willing to do the groundwork in exchange for a percentage of collected settlements.

Steele's new hunting grounds favor his chosen business model. Time Magazine pointed out in a 2008 article about ADA lawsuit abuse that Illinois (along with California, Hawaii and Florida) is one of the easiest states to file (and collect on) frivolous lawsuits. The American Tort Reform Foundation has also called out Illinois' flawed legal system in the past, naming it one of the nation's foremost "judicial hellholes." One of the issues specifically listed is the willingness of the state to entertain lawsuits filed by non-residents -- something that works in Steele's favor if he doesn't actually reside in Illinois. Prenda Law was nominally a Chicago operation, but also included work done from Florida and (see Hansmeier) Minnesota.

Once a troll, always a troll, it seems. Prenda Law may no longer be an entity, but the lawyers behind it are back in the settlement business. Sure, ADA violations may be more publicly palatable than chasing porn downloaders, but underneath it all, it's still the same shady business that has the potential to wreak the same sort of financial havoc on its victims.

from the about-time dept

So, remember how Paul Hansmeier's latest scheme has been to file a bunch of cases against small businesses, claiming their websites violated the Americans with Disabilities Act? The same lawyer who is getting slammed by courts all over the country for his shady copyright trolling practices appeared to be up to a new form of trolling -- a view that was strongly supported when one of the plaintiffs in one of these ADA cases, Lily Poss, claimed that she had "no idea" that Hansmeier was filing lawsuits on her behalf. That's a major no-no by a lawyer already very deep in trouble. And it took all of about a day for Hansmeier to file to dismiss the case in which he "represented" Poss -- though he did so "without prejudice," meaning that the case could potentially be refiled again in the future.

from the is-he-just-looking-to-pile-on-more-problems? dept

Last week, we wrote a couple times about Paul Hansmeier's new lawsuit strategy, which had some similar characteristics to ones he's had in the past: they appear to be nuisance lawsuits designed to quickly extract settlements, rather than for any legitimate legal reason. He had done this in the past, obviously, with copyright trolling, but then again with class action lawsuits. The latest round involved claimed Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations, mainly arguing that various small business websites violated the ADA.

Remember, with the copyright cases, Hansmeier is now in trouble for being involved in bogus shell companies and forged signatures. With the class action objections, his clients were mostly close family members. Some of our commenters quickly speculated about whether or not the "clients" in these ADA cases were real... or, if they were, if they knew the lawsuits existed. Well, wonder no more. A local newspaper, The Mankato Free Press, has quite a story, detailing how at least one of the clients had absolutely no idea that Hansmeier was filing lawsuits on her behalf:

The plaintiff named in the Family Dentistry lawsuit is Lily Poss, a visually impaired woman from North Mankato. Poss said she supports the organization's mission statement. However, she's not sure she can support Hansmeier after learning about the tactics he's using.

Poss had no idea that lawsuit, nor another one involving a business called Bancwest Investment Services, had been filed in her name. It was her understanding she would be providing information about websites that would be used to educate businesses, she said. She said it was possible that lawsuits would be filed if businesses didn't comply, but she didn't realize Hansmeier and Class Justice would be going after small businesses such as Family Dentistry.

The article notes that Poss signed up for this after getting a call from a cousin she hadn't spoken to in years -- named Allan Mooney. You may recall that name from previous Prenda lawsuits, where it was spelled many different ways (Allan Mooney, Alan Mony, Alan Moony, etc), and who later told a reporter that he didn't know he was involved in these lawsuits. Of course, now you have to wonder about that if he's signing up his long lost cousins for the latest wacky scheme from Hansmeier to shakedown companies.

Hansmeier, quite incredibly, is claiming that he's working for the good of disabled people, tossing out this astounding line:

"We consider ourselves to be an advocacy association more than we consider ourselves a law firm," he said. "With the porn reputation, I wanted to shift my focus and focus on something more positive. We're really focused on doing it right so anyone who hears about us says, 'Yeah. This is the right way to go about it.'"

I know. Stop laughing. Of course, no one thinks this is the right way to go about it. The same reporter asked Ken Rodgers, the past president of the American Council of the Blind chapter in Minnesota, who agreed that websites that were hard for the blind to read can be a problem, but also made clear that he did not support what Hansmeier was doing at all, and, in fact, felt that it was just another way to squeeze money out of companies:

"Is he trying to make websites accessible, or is he just banking on the lawsuit revenue?" Rodgers said. "All this is doing is making the attorney wealthy, not fixing the problem. I would much rather have somebody make a business case to a business that has a website."

Furthermore, for all of Hansmseier's claims of doing "advocacy" work, when the reporter asked him to detail what advocacy organizations he's working with, he couldn't name any.

Filing a lawsuit on behalf of a client who hasn't actually agreed to be a part of that lawsuit could be a huge problem (though Hansmeier likely has bigger problems ahead on the priority list). Also, there's at least some potential that these plaintiffs may end up on the hook for attorneys' fees for the filing of bogus lawsuits.

Either way, you have to imagine that the almost certainly ongoing criminal investigation of Hansmeier's activities detailing the list of things he's done, the fact that he's continued to work on questionable schemes like this one, even after being slammed in courts all over the country for previous activities, won't reflect well on him.

Early on, I mentioned that Steele and Hansmeier really reminded me of some people I knew who were absolutely positive they were smarter than everyone else, when they really weren't. It's like they're playing chess by thinking they're the best chess players in the world because they can think one move ahead, while the people they're playing against can clearly see many moves ahead. It's astounding that they don't realize that each move they make only makes things worse and worse and worse.

from the count-'em dept

Earlier this week, we noted that Team Prenda's Paul Hansmeier appeared to be filing questionable lawsuits, claiming Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) violations, including over websites. We pointed out that this had the hallmarks of Hansmeier's historical trolling cases, including copyright trolling and settlement opposition: file nuisance cases that appear designed to encourage those sued to just pay up to settle. We pointed out that while there were just two of these ADA cases, since we only found out about the most recent one because it had been removed to federal court, we wondered if there were more lurking in Minnesota state court.

The answer is: yes, absolutely. And it didn't take long. Three more such cases have been removed to federal court, and they're all quite similar. In each case, Hansmeier claims that the websites violate the ADA by not being "accessible" to people with disabilities. In each case, the claims are highly questionable, as can be seen in the two responses that have been filed already (all embedded below). The earlier story involved a dentist office's website. The latest ones are a doctor's office, a bank, and a chiropractor. Basically small business websites. I expect that we'll be seeing many more of these as well. You'd think Hansmeier would be busy trying to defend all of the cases he's been losing where he owes attorneys' fees for his copyright trolling efforts, but apparently he just can't stop filing questionable lawsuits.